Now that we've branched for the LLVM 14 release, our support window
moves to clang-13 and clang-14. Similarly, AppleClang 13 has been
released for some time now, so that should be the oldest compiler
we support, per our policy.
A possible follow-up would be to remove _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS, since
I don't think we support any compiler that doesn't support concepts
anymore.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118831
There is no reason for the parts of std::span that don't depend on ranges
to be disabled when ranges aren't provided. Also, to make sure the
"no-experimental-stuff" configuration is tested, add a CI job for it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118740
Even if these comments have a benefit in .h files (for editors that
care about language but can't be configured to treat .h as C++ code),
they certainly have no benefit for files with the .cpp extension.
Discussed in D110794.
* <__algorithm/iter_swap.h>
* <__algorithm/swap_ranges.h>
* <__functional/is_transparent.h>
* <__memory/uses_allocator.h>
* <__ranges/drop_view.h>
* <__ranges/transform_view.h>
* <shared_mutex>
* <span>
Also updates header inclusions that were affected.
**NOTE:** This is a proper subset of D105932. Since the content has
already been LGTM'd, I intend to merge this patch without review,
pending green CI. I decided it would be better to move these changes
into their own commit since the former patch has undergone further
changes and will need yet another light review. In the event any of
that gets rolled back (for whatever reason), the changes in this patch
won't be affected.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106040
C++98 and C++03 are effectively aliases as far as Clang is concerned.
As such, allowing both std=c++98 and std=c++03 as Lit parameters is
just slightly confusing, but provides no value. It's similar to allowing
both std=c++17 and std=c++1z, which we don't do.
This was discovered because we had an internal bot that ran the test
suite under both c++98 AND c++03 -- one of which is redundant.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80926
The calculation _Offset + _Count <= size() may overflow, so use
_Count <= size() - _Offset instead. Note that this is safe due to
the previous constraint that _Offset <= size().
Patch by Michael Schellenberger Costa.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71998
